Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Theriot, 323 So. 2d 120.

118 citing documents.

Nohc, Inc. v. Erroll G. Williams, Assessor, Parish of Orleans; Norman White, Director of Finance for the City … La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Superior Trucking, LLC v. Sasol Chemicals, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Mayehaul Trucking, LLC v. Sasol Chemicals LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Succession of Evlyn Northington Farris Angus La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
Cedrick Landry v. Brittany Usie La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
David Defelice, Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Son, Pascal Hondroulis, and Katie Hondroulis Versus Federated National … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
Gr Restaurants, LLC v. Suzanne Savoy Santillo, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
GR Rests., LLC v. Suzanne Savoy Santillo, LLC 275 So. 3d 50 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
See Wilkinson v. Wilkinson , , 126 (La.1975).
Hansen v. River Cities Disposal Co. 245 So. 3d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson , (La.
Gerald Castille v. St. Martin Parish School Board La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Castille v. St. Martin Parish School Board 190 So. 3d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Magee v. Worley 163 So. 3d 23 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Joseph Andrus Cormier, Sr., Et Ux. v. Coldwell Bankers La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
Cormier v. Coldwell Banker 150 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Marvin Luke Stracener La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
Ciolino v. First Guaranty Bank 133 So. 3d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Luther v. Iom Co. 130 So. 3d 817 La. 2013
Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC v. Penn-America Insurance Co. 110 So. 3d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Waste Management of Louisiana, LLC v. Penn-America Ins. Co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Coard 88 So. 3d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
St. Tammany Parish Hospital v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc. 91 So. 3d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See Reggio v. E.T.I., 07-1433 (La.12/12/08), ; Bailey v. Khoury, 04-0620 (La.1/20/05), (La.
Miller Plastering, Inc. v. Amigo Building Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
This court, relying on the state supreme court’s previously identified the three elements required when applying equitable estoppel as (1) A representation by conduct or work; (2) Justifiable reliance thereon; and (3) A change of position to one’s detriment because of the reliance.
Miller Plastering, Inc. v. Amigo Building Corp. 20 So. 3d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
This court, relying on the state supreme court’s previously identified the three elements required when applying equitable estoppel as (1) A representation by conduct or work; (2) Justifiable reliance thereon; and (3) A change of position to one’s detriment because of the reliance.
Barnes v. Barnes 8 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Heathcock v. Neuenhaus, 05-954 (La.App.
Reggio v. E.T.I. 15 So. 3d 951 La. 2008
In Bailey v. Khoury, 04-0620 (La.1/20/05), , this Court held that “[pjrescription cannot run against a cause of action that has not accrued or while |nthat cause of action cannot be exercised.” ().
Ghassemi v. Ghassemi 998 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Mamie Trahan v. Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Trahan v. Acadia Parish Sheriff's Office 950 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Heathcock v. Neuenhaus 930 So. 2d 1013 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
Daren Coutee v. the Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
The Court in Elliot[t] held that “a municipality or other governmental agency may be estopped ‘where the act or contract relied on to create the estoppel was within its corporate powers, although the method of exercising the power was irregular or unauthorized.[’”] Elliot[t] (La.
Coutee v. Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System 921 So. 2d 1147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
The Court in Elliotft] held that “a municipality or other governmental agency may be estopped ‘where the act or contract relied on to create the estoppel was within its corporate powers, although the method of exercising the power was irregular or unauthorized!’ ”] Elliotft] which identified the elements necessary to sustain a claim based on equitable estoppel.
May v. Harris Management Corp. 928 So. 2d 140 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Bailey v. Khoury 891 So. 2d 1268 La. 2005
Gross v. Pieno 892 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Cugini, Ltd. v. ARGONAUT GREAT CENT. INS. 889 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
Eckhardt v. Reveley 881 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
White v. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. 878 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
Delesdernier v. LA. HEALTH SERV. AND INDEM. 867 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
in which the Supreme Court held that a party may be barred from asserting rights it might otherwise have by virtue of its voluntary conduct.
Roberson v. LAFAYETTE OILMAN'S SHOOT 845 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
Murphy v. Gilsbar, Inc. 834 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Elliott v. Catahoula Parish Police Jury 816 So. 2d 996 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
the supreme court identified the elements of equitable estoppel: Equitable estoppel, or `estoppel in pais,' can be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is barred from asserting rights against another party justifiably relying on such conduct and who has changed his posit
Butler v. Sudderth 784 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
Haring v. Stinson 756 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
as follows: Equitable estoppel, or `estoppel in pais', can be defined as the effect of the voluntary conduct of a party whereby he is barred from asserting rights against another party justifiably relying on such conduct and who has changed his position to his detriment as a result of such reliance.
Banks v. Foster & Lishman Logging 728 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
Ruiz v. Oniate 713 So. 2d 442 La. 1998
1981); Marquette Cement Mfg.
Schwegmann Bank and Trust Co. v. Dunne 693 So. 2d 349 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Bramlet v. Lakeside Hospital 690 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
In 1975, the Louisiana Supreme Court defined equitable estoppel and listed the required elements as “(1) a representation by conduct or word; (2) justifiable reliance; and (3) a change in position to one’s detriment because of the reliance.” (citations omitted).
Leger v. Tyson Foods, Inc. 670 So. 2d 397 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
Hammons v. ABB CE SERVICES, INC. 671 So. 2d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Brankline v. Capuano 656 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995